OCFSRB 2021

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent agency was biased, alienated him from his children, and failed to hear his request for a new worker.

The Board previously dismissed the access-related issues as they were before the court.

In a written hearing on the remaining issue, the Board found that the respondent had properly received, considered, and provided written reasons for denying the applicant's request to remove two workers from his file.

The complaint was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicants, former foster parents, filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with the timelines and procedures of the Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP).

The applicants' foster home had been closed and a child removed.

The ICRP process had been paused at the applicants' request pending disclosure of records.

The Board found that the applicants acted precipitously in filing the application before the society's deadline to provide disclosure had expired.

The Board also noted that issues of disclosure fall under the jurisdiction of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, not the Board.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a kin caregiver, filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent society's handling of access visits and safety concerns involving the child's father.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were currently before the court in a Status Review Application.

The Board agreed, finding that the applicant's concerns regarding access, custody, and risk assessment were substantive issues to be decided by the court.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's actions, including the apprehension of her children, alleged abuse in foster care, and failure to provide records.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues had been addressed in court proceedings.

The Board agreed, finding that the substantive issues regarding apprehension, custody, and access were already before or decided by the court.

The Board also dismissed the complaint that the respondent failed to inform the applicant of the complaint process, noting there is no legal onus to promote it.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the respondent children's aid society under section 120(4) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging a failure to provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests.

The dispute centered on the society's continued involvement with the family and a subsequent investigation after the applicant's child visited the hospital.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that while the society provided adequate reasons for its earlier involvement, it failed to inform the applicant or provide reasons for contacting the child's paediatrician during an intake process in June 2021.

The Board ordered the society to provide a written explanation of its intake and investigation processes.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to properly manage her file and address her concerns regarding her child's mental health.

The Board found that the applicant had not first made a complaint to the society using the prescribed 'Formal Complaint to a Society’s Internal Complaints Review Panel' form, as required by the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 and its regulations.

Consequently, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to review the matter and dismissed the application.

The applicant, a former foster mother of the child, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the respondent children's aid society's decision to refuse her adoption application.

The respondent had notified the applicant that another adoptive applicant was matched with the child.

The Board found that the application was filed within the 10-day statutory time limit under section 192 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Board directed that the matter proceed to a hearing and scheduled a teleconference to address preliminary issues and set timelines.

The applicants filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 regarding the respondent society's investigations.

The parties reached a settlement agreement at a pre-hearing.

The applicants subsequently alleged that the respondent failed to comply with the agreement by providing unsatisfactory answers to agreed-upon questions.

The tribunal found that the respondent had answered the questions as required and therefore complied with the settlement agreement, closing the file.

The applicants sought a review of the respondent society's decision to remove a youth with special needs from their foster home.

Prior to the hearing on the merits, the respondent brought a motion to move the youth from her temporary hotel placement to a group home, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction over interim placements.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to make interim placement orders based on the child's best interests.

Applying the best interests test, the Board dismissed the motion, finding insufficient evidence to justify disrupting the youth's continuity of care before the final hearing.

The applicant father filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent society alienated him from his children through access conditions and failed to address his request for a new worker.

The respondent challenged the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over the access and supervision issues as they were currently before the court.

However, the Board found it had jurisdiction to hear the complaint regarding the request for a new worker, as a formal complaint to the society was not a prerequisite for the specific remedies sought.

The Board directed written submissions on the format of the hearing for the remaining issue.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding services received from the children's aid society, specifically concerning residence requirements, access, and safety planning.

The Board found that all the issues raised in the complaint were currently before the court in an ongoing child protection proceeding.

Consequently, the Board determined it lacked jurisdiction to review the complaint under section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent society's handling of his concerns about a friend who was receiving services.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

Under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, a complaint must relate to services sought or received by the applicant.

As the applicant was neither a parent nor a recipient of services from the respondent, he had no standing to bring the complaint.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the respondent children's aid society regarding its handling of child abuse allegations.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because it had not provided services to the applicant or her child, as the active investigation was being conducted by a different society.

The Board found that the applicant was not in receipt of services from the respondent and that the issues raised were currently before the family court.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicants, foster parents, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board after their foster child was removed from their care.

They alleged the children's aid society failed to give them a chance to be heard and failed to follow its complaint review process.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that foster parents do not fall within the definition of 'parent' under the Act for the purposes of the right to be heard, and the applicants had not filed their complaint in the required format.

The applicant, a foster parent, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board after their foster child was removed from their home.

The applicant alleged that the society failed to give them an opportunity to be heard when decisions affecting their interests were made, contrary to section 15(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the right to be heard under section 15(2) is limited to children, young persons, and their parents.

As the definition of 'parent' in the Act does not include foster parents, the Board lacked jurisdiction to review the application.

The applicant foster parent filed an application to review the respondent society's decision to remove a foster child who had lived continuously in the applicant's home for over two years.

The child was removed without the required 10 days' written notice under section 109(7)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found the application was filed within the statutory 10-day period and directed that the matter proceed to an expedited hearing.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society of Hamilton under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging the Society failed to give him an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for closing an investigation into his children's safety.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society failed to provide satisfactory reasons initially and failed to give the applicant an opportunity to be heard, notably when a supervisor persistently ignored his phone messages.

The Board dismissed allegations of racial and gender discrimination due to insufficient evidence.

As the Society had already convened an Internal Complaints Review Process and issued an apology and updated closing letter, the Board made no further orders given its limited remedial authority.

The applicant foster parent applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the respondent society's proposed removal of two children who had lived in her home for over two years.

The applicant had only received verbal notice of the removal, whereas the statute requires 10 days' written notice.

The Board issued an interim decision scheduling an initial hearing to determine whether it has jurisdiction to proceed with the application in the absence of written notice.

The applicant filed a complaint against the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

After failing to attend two previous pre-hearing teleconferences, a third pre-hearing videoconference was scheduled.

The applicant failed to attend the videoconference and did not communicate with the Board despite multiple attempts to contact him.

The Board dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, a grandmother and former foster parent, alleged that the respondent Society failed to comply with a Settlement Agreement requiring it to provide reasons for various child protection decisions.

The Child and Family Services Review Board conducted a hearing in writing to review the Society's compliance under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Board found that the Society had provided adequate written reasons for its decisions regarding investigations, respite care, and placement.

The Board noted that the applicant's disagreement with the reasons did not constitute non-compliance.

The allegation of non-compliance was dismissed.